The Sony 24mm F1.4 GM is an impressively compact, high quality lens. In fact, it earned our 2018 DPReview annual award for best prime lens, when we described it as follows: "It's uncannily sharp edge-to-edge wide open with little to no coma, bokeh is smooth, and longitudinal chromatic aberration - that purple and green fringing we loathe on many fast wide primes - is well controlled." Yep, good things do come in small packages.
So, when I had the chance to shoot with it in beautiful Sedona, Arizona, I jumped at the opportunity. I was curious to see how it performed in comparison to other prime 24 mm lenses. Click through the gallery to see the photos I shot with this outstanding lens.
Want to learn more about this lens? Watch our hands-on shooting experience on DPReview TV:
A great astrophotography lens!!! Yay! Now, if only Sony would correct their star-eater problem on the A7's, we'd all have something to really celebrate.
Is there any reason why Sony puts a "Sony Corp., Japan" silver sticker on the outside and discretely hides "Made in China/Thailand" in the inner back part of their lenses?
Because Sony is in Japan, and they make some of the lenses in Thailand. When I was at Digital Photo Pro, I toured the factory along with Rishi from DPR. It’s an amazing facility.
The lens isn't very pretty. Looks like a many modern lenses that tend sacrifice an ability to faithfully show tonal gradations for the sake of edge sharpness.
I would be really curious to see anyone explain cientifically how a lens can show tonal gradations more or less faithfully. I personally believe a lot of photographers are just purists and find stuff to complain about on modern lenses and cameras. Others just like softness.
I have not heard such nonsense.You are mixing lens and sensor performance.This is lens review and frankly sharpness is much better on a large sensor than on 3 mm one iphone sensor with plastic lens (gorilla glass).
Can anyone tell me how a 24mm lens benefits from an f1.4 max aperture? I understand that a fast aperture is useful for astro-photography, but other than that very niche practise - what's the point?
There are two photos here using the maximum aperture, one of the night sky and one of a cactus plant that would have been much better shot with a 50mm lens.
This trend of ultra-fast, ultra-expensive, ultra-heavy lenses perplexes me. It might be that lens manufacturers (regardless of the badge) are trying to create a new 'market segment' where none really exists. Maybe.
Greater oof area and more subject isolation. Yes, you can shoot portraiture with wide angle focal lenses, all focal lenses are perfectly valid for portraiture, it's alk your artistic vision and the look that you're going for.
Low light photography in cramped ill lit spaces? I’ve had my Nikon 24/1.4G for eight years now, and that wide aperture is a big help in those situations.
I agree! Regardless of any advantage, you have to pay a price for an aperture that wide open. It makes the lens heavyweight and bulky (although Sony's 24mm isn't as heavy as one might expect it to be). Furthermore, picture 7 in the row of the gallery has been deleted in the latest hours - most likely because it showed tremendous CA! BTW, I'm hoping Sony is going to make lenses for its mirrorless APS-C system that meet professional demands as to IQ - still being relatively compact and lightweight.
Grapejam, thanks for the info! Since I didn't find such an amount of CA elsewhere in the gallery, the staff's statement is arguably true. On the other hand You might wonder how a declaredly little PP can produce that shocking CA.
I downloaded the RAW and played with it in LR and RT. The processing is harsh, indeed, which raises the question why they did that in the first place. On the other hand, there are some well defined double edges which I have never seen before. This is not ordinary PF or LoCA or whatever it is - it is something unique to that lens.
BTW, #2 shows quite of bit of LoCA. They used it wide open three times only, and aside from the astro shot, the other two show considerable LoCA.
Wide angle action shots in low light conditions, e.g. roosting a berm in the woods. You need the fast shutter speed to freeze the dirt, but there isn't much light to work with.
Fast primes, my outstanding Fujifilm 16 mm 1.4 ... 24 equivalent ... allows me to “Rule the Night”! It even allows me to also use a flash, with minimal, annoying “blast,” nicely balanced to the background ... and gelled to match the background light sources. Barely looks like flash. Portraits wide open help isolate the subject. There is a whole world of low light photography out there for you to explore. 1.4 with a 50 often restricts taking action shots. Focus is too iffy. I don’t give it a thought with my 16/24 mm. I could post so many samples! The Light Festival, Descanso Gardens Enchanted Forest show ... starts at sunset, Galway, Ireland, backstreet musicians and singers ... and drunks! Outdoor movies at City Hall, Pasadena, HALLOWEEN, class reunion, parties, indoor sports, recent trip to Zurich, Switzerland Christmas Market !!!
They claim that they'll return to EF development after 2019, but I'd take that claim with a grain of salt. It's quite possible that by 2020 they won't see any reason to return to new EF lens development at all.
It's interesting that's this is your 1 choice for wide prime. A good choice and it's so portable! It would be mine, too.
I'm curious, what would be your 1 choice for a portable portrait lens giving nice background blur on A7...? I would love it if Sony came out with a 105mm f1.8 with 58mm aperture & 62mm thread. It'd be compact, and would be my perfect A7... portrait lens. But I wonder if they'll ever make this?
Thanks for the suggestion on the Sony 100mm f2.8. I hadn't considered it because of it's higher f#. I decided to compare 4 relatively portable lenses from focal length 85mm to 105mm (in FF terms), including one in M43 as I have a EM1-2. They are 1) Sony FE 85mm f1.8, 2) Olympus 45mm f1.2 (90mm f2.8 EQ), 3) Sony 100mm f2.8, and 4) a hopeful future Sony 105mm f1.8 . You can see the background blur diameter graphs for these 4 at: http://howmuchblur.dekoning.nl/#compare-1x-85mm-f1.8-and-2x-45mm-f1.2-and-1x-100mm-f2.8-and-1x-105mm-f1.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject
It clearly shows the most blur diameter from the 105 f1.8, 2nd is the 85mm f1.8, and last (almost equal) are the Oly 45mm f1.2 and Sony 100 f2.8
This does not take into account the bokeh (blur smoothness), and I would guess that the Sony 100mm f2.8 and Oly 45mm f1.2 are smoothest. And the longer focal length (105mm) has less background in view than the shorter focal lengths, so the blur may seem even bigger.
Yes the 100 stf has “more” bokeh (smaller diameter blur) because it is f2.8 but the blur is significantly smoother. The stf (smooth trans focus) is designed specifically for portrait-type work and has a built-in apodization filter. Because of this the light transmission actually drops to equivalent f5.6 when shot wide open at 2.8. It’s an amazing lens and I suggest you go check it out in person. Almost everyone who does is very impressed by it. It literally makes the subject pop from the background. Here is a pretty good review of it with some samples: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-100-f-2-8-stf-gm-oss-lens/
You can see that the bokeh has more shapes present but it’s ultra-smooth compared to the 85mm he shows. In that instance I definitely prefer the 100 stf look. The lens is obviously a great choice if you are using flash. For walk-around portrait one has to be aware of available light when using this lens.
By the way I own and use the 85/1.8 regularly now and it’s a great lens for the price. Very compact for an 85. It’s tack sharp (as I’m sure you know) but what impresses me most is it’s very lively color. To me it renders like a ZA lens. In comparison the 28mm/f2 (also not a ZA lens) had a much more dull feel to me color-wise.
Thanks, Terkwoiz. I looked into the link you mentioned and now I know what an apodization filter does - it's just a radial fade-out-away-from-center lens, so it doesn't affect sharpness, but does really take the edge off the bokeh balls by absorbing lots of light as you get to the outer edges of the iris. It's ingenious in that it makes for incredibly good bokeh quality, but suffers from poorer bokeh quantity and illumination dimness.
The Oly PRO lenses claim "feathered bokeh", and this makes me wonder if they put a slight apodization fade-out in them?
Sounds like the 85mm f1.8 is best for portable portrait use to me now, as smaller & lighter is also a significant advantage. But I'd really love it if they up'ed the 85 to 105mm in f1.8 which I'd hope could be close to the same weight.
The 135mm f2 would be awesome, since it'd have a 67.5 aperture, and probably a 72mm thread. But it would still be bigger & heavier than something in a 62mm filter thread. But I'd take it over a 135mm f1.8 which would be even bigger & heavier. At some point you've got all the bokeh quantity you need and then being smaller & lighter is crucial.
Because of ISO invariance, ISO 800 and a slightly longer exposure time provides an image with less noise than higher ISO and shorter time. 20s is the outside of where that 24mm can take a sharp image of the sky. The 500 rule says you take 500 and divide by the focal length for the max seconds before blur. That's 500/24=21.
I was on this trip, shot with those exact settings. Not blurry.
I have not take nightly sky before as I do not have the fast lens. If you open the full size jpg file, you can see the trace of the movement of the stars. Are those preferred/OK? vs ISO1600 and 10sec
@ David Schloss: Is there a misunderstanding about ISO invariance here? With ISO variance, we are comparing the same exposure (same shutter speed and aperture value), taken with different ISO values. The end result should be the same noisewise, except that lower ISO would ensure some more highlight detail IF the highlights are brighter than what is preserved with the higher ISO setting.
Note that for astrophoto, this is valid when using ISO higher than 640, due to the dual gain technology used for newer Sony sensors. Pushing lower ISO settings a lot will result in some more noise than using the higher ISO setting, and also visible color shift.
@Georgeee "If you open the full size jpg file, you can see the trace of the movement of the stars. Are those preferred/OK? vs ISO1600 and 10sec"
Generally star trails like those in the image are considered a no-no by astroimagers. But they are very small since the focal length is so short, so whether or not the image would be useable depends on how big you're going to print it or crop it.
Personally I would use a tracking mount to get the stars and then shoot the landscape and merge/overlay them in post.
Regarding the ISO, I agree that 1600 might have been more useful, but 10 secs is still probably not long enough to get very deep star field data...thus the tracking mount. With the tracking mount you can easily extend the exposure to several minutes if needed. And of course you have the increased noise at 1600, but that is maybe a small price to pay for increased sensitivity.
The 500 rule doesn't work so well with high megapixel sensors. Maybe you can apply it if using a 12 megapixel A7S, but not the 42 megapixel A7R ii or iii. Better to call it the rule of 250 or even 200. That means 10 seconds tops for your 24mm...maybe even 8 seconds if you want pinpoints.
When I saw the samples for the Canon 28-70 f/2 I was convinced that Sony's future was bleak. But now looking at the samples from this Sony lens, I'm afraid that Canon may be the one headed for an early grave and that Sony will standing triumphant atop the smoking wreckage of our civilization.
SmilerGrogan, I like to think that you're going to see the day when the pigeons realise that the cat is actually a slipper... But I'm not holding my breath.
"triumphant atop the smoking wreckage of our civilization." - Got to laugh...
The Zeiss is not compact enough; the f/2.8 is not fast enough. If Sony can produce a compact 24mm f/1.4, then why not a 35mm? Apparently there doesn't need to be a compromise.
Well I’m not sure how the design of a 24mm differs from that of a 35mm but I’m assuming it’s easier for them to design the wide-angle lenses in a more compact form. The longer the focal length gets the less compact the designs are even for mirrorless. What I was really getting at is that Sony already has a 35/1.4 so it’s highly unlikely that they’re going to replace it with a more-compact design. It’s more likely that they’ll release an f1.8 or an f2 (they already have an excellent f2 design built into the rx1 that they could convert). I’ve never used the 35/1.4 za but I’ve heard it’s difficult to find one that’s not decentered. Then there’s the Loxia 35/2 but it’s manual of course. Maybe a g master 35/1.8 would make the most sense because it wouldn’t canabalize any of the the other current 35mm designs.
Thanks for the links! You're right. Size-wise, the difference is not that great (though still significant if you ask me). Weight-wise, however, the Zeiss 35mm is definitely more of a millstone than the Sony 24mm (around 200g difference). Anyway, I'm afraid that, indeed, Sony is not going to replace the Zeiss with a less hefty version any time soon. Point taken... ;-) I currently use a Fuji X-Pro2 with multiple lenses and I miss the FF shallow DOF wide open. Would love a compact FF camera with a similarly compact 35mm f/1.4 to enjoy the shallow-DOF effect at this focal length for environmental portraiture.
Yes, I think the lens controls astigmatism and coma very well compared to every other lens I've looked at. The one thing I've noticed though (being a sometimes astro guy) is that the stars at the corners are kind of 'blocky' rather than truly round as they are further in towards the center.
But don't get me wrong, the lens is still very well controlled.
you see the canon gallery and it's a joy for the eyes (for exmple the 28-70mm f2) ...you see the sony gallery and and as always you see images without soul and with so so colors...
soul and so so color comment has little factual value. Seem like a jealous comment. Now if you said 70mm at f2 perspective render different then 24mm f1.4 then that is true, then again it is a different focal length you are comparing. lenses do render differently then other. Some has more CA, some has different bokeh from the types of blade it has. but you were just saying so so color, soul (what ever that is technically I am not sure) and that is an opinion and not factual at all unless you can compare them in the same situation, lighting, scene, etc.
Is your monitor color corrected? I see nothing wrong with the color in these images. A good photographer can breath "soul" into an image regardless of equipment used. I do have to say that these images really do nothing for me personally but that has nothing to do with the lens.
@Magar W :I always download raw files and edit them in LR... And from what I saw Sony never come close in Canon colors depth and vibrance...and no you cant tweak them in post in the same way...
@ Gianluca Grossi: Raw files? Then the link to so called "color science" is broken at the moment when you open the files with your raw converter! With raw files you have to fully rely on profiles! And processing.
There are many myths about color. There also is taste, preferences - and bias! Work fully calibrated, and people will not be able to tell which camera a picture is taken with. No chance!
@Magnar W different sensor tech leads to different colors reproduction...even if you are fully calibrated. Sony is different from fuji , leica and Canon and Nikon everyone has their own sign. I have owned many cameras ( olympus, fuji, sony) and to my eyes Canon is what I like the most by a huge margin...
@ Gianluca Grossi: Use a different profile for your raw file converter, and everything changes. Use a different raw converter, and color will be different. Then chose profiles with this raw converter, and you get different color … comparing default raw converter settings doesn't tell anything at all about the file color, it is just a starting point, set by the maker of the raw converter.
My guess is that this is about personal preferences and bias. That's ok, but not valid for general advice if it all is just based on default settings with a raw converter. With a calibrated workflow, nobody could tell a difference. This is what calibration is all about - neutral color, according to a set of strictly defined color patches.
“With a calibrated workflow , no body could tell a difference”...i strongly disagree with this statement,based on my experience....but I’m happy to know that u can have the same result with different cameras...
@Gianluca Grossi in the last few years, sony CS has been the most accurate amongst all cameras according to the various sources... for the best results, capture one for sony should be used. regards
Canon pictures have a "soul", everyone know that. When they die in a hard drive crash and disappear, their "soul" go to the paradise of photography. As everyone know, this "soul" is created by the magicians from Canon because they have the secret recipe of the "color science". Not a long time ago, it was simply called "color rendition", but talking about "color science" makes you look far more professional since a year or two.
Sony with the last a7 mk3 said that they have much improved their color science , so it's not just Canon ....but it's ok, if you are happy with that colors I'm really really happy for you..
All right, if you insist. You are looking at Adobe colors here Gianluca Grossi... Adobe builds their own color profile for every camera. The color rendition that we see here has very little to do with "Sony colors", whatever that means... You realize how silly this debate is at the moment you start using different profiles, different raw converters, or when you start creating your own profiles.
@Ayoul ok if you think that all camera have the same output this is a really silly conversation... But if you ceck here there is a photo taken with A73 and canon R, they are raw , they have the same LR setting and they are completely different... https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/canon-vs-sony/eos-r-vs-a7iii/2/
? I've never said that all cameras should look the same when opening LR. The choices made by Adobe for their neutral / standard or color profiles is their own business. I think that you don't get the point. Whatever you see when opening LR is choices made BY ADOBE, not by Sony.
But Lightroom isn't really photo editing software. LR includes Adobe Camera Raw for extraction. Photoshop has significantly more colour options than LR.
And yes, lenses affect the colour captured. So a Nikon lens will render something differently than Canon lens. To certain extent these differences can be removed with Photoshop, but there are limits to what can be changed without.
We actually process Raw images for lens galleries using a standard method, intended to offer as level a playing field as possible - which includes turning CA correction and additional profiling off. We can't control what ACR is doing 'under the hood' though.
LR says that lens corrections have been automatically applied. I used RT as well, and that silhouette night shot looks horrible in the slightly OOF areas there, as well. I can't say how deeply baked in the RAW those corrections are.
There are no baked in Raw corrections for LoCA. Also, that shot had been heavily processed so much of the fringing was introduced by the processing - you can make almost any lens with even a tiny bit of LoCA look bad with enough shadow pushing and highlight recovery.
As pointed out about a dozen times your level playing field is not level. Take something easy like distortion correction. It is enabled on all Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji lens galleries. But not on Sony. Why? Should Sony be punished for giving users the option to turn it off in ACR? Either use a converter like C1 that really let's you turn off all corrections for every manufacturer, or enable all corrections for everybody.
Same goes for the new Nikon. "No additional CA correction" is not the same as "No CA correction"
I'm afraid without hacking into ACR's Raw conversion algorithms, there's not much we can do about that. Besides giving you the Raws to make your own adjustments in whatever Raw processor you prefer, of course. Which we do.
@Rishi: Of course, I downloaded the file and played with it before posting this, using two converters. No, you cannot make "almost" any lens look like this. There is something weird which I have never seen before.
BTW, posting heavily processed files is not very informative...
Well there is something you can do about it. > enable distortion correction for all manufacturers. For that you don't need to hack ACR and it gives you a level playing field. I would even argue it shows the lenses the way the manufacturer intended them to be used.
Do you really think you should make the decision if corrections are enabled based on the decision of ACR? What if ACR updates tomorrow and forces Sony corrections. Did that then change your testing protocoll just because ACR decided so?
Lovely colors from the A7R3. As a Canon shooter I have been quite impressed with the color output from the EOS R, but I must say that this is equally good. If not better. Sure, the light in these images is ideal for pleasing colors but still. Congrats to all the Sony users out there...
It's always Camera Raw interpreting colours, A7RIII WB is always too much greenish for me but fixable, I find A7III and EOS R WB output much more consistent, less fixing in LR, I was never pleased with the LR output of my Canon 6D raws, much much better with my Canon 5DSR (one of the best out there as colour raw output in LR for what concerns me), never tried the Nikons Z, then, as always, it is also a matter of taste :)
I'm a nikon shooter, and i'm jealous too. 24mm is by far my most used focal length, so a 'superior performer' here would make sense (more so then any other focal length). All the nikon lenses have compromises (even 28mm F1.4E). Think i'm gonna get the 28mm F1.4 art (newly announced). it's the closest lens to what i want, and the 'weight downside' is one i can live with. But if nikon doesn't contest this 24mm gm, the Sony A7RIII surely remains more tempting then Z7.
You guys have heard about Nikon 24mm f/1.4G ED and Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II? There is really nothing to be jealous. While the latest Sony might be slightly sharper difference would not be day and night. They all are great while Sigma would be the best value.
Well, apart my experience with field curvature, there is no comparison as per sharpness, spherocromatism and fringing with Sony 24 GM, old Canon EF 24 f1.4L II is much worse inthis regard and the bokeh can be very nervous, it is sharp from f4 up, I've never tried the Nikon :)
Zeiss 25 f2 Batis is much better for my experience, I had 2 x new 24 GM with huge field curvature in the right side of the frame, focusing on the centre they were very sharp in the middle/apsc frame, very good on left edge of the frame even at f1.4, completely out of focus by far on the right part of frame (up to f5.6), absolutely unacceptable, at least for me, I was lucky to have back the money. Zeiss 25 f2 (and 18 Batis) not a single problem at all, tack sharp at f2 from side to side and everything perfectly in focus, well controlled and very low field curvature, maybe a little CA and little distorsion (mustache like for the 18 Batis) but nothing to worry about, they are a gem. I wish better luck to other users of the 24 GM, wanted so much to love it, I'm not saying it's a bad lens, maybe I had been unlucky evidently.
I know, read my reply to another comment below, it is pretty evident to me that f1.4 is slower than f2 but with a stabilized sensor is no advantage if the picture is not in focus so I prefer by far the Batis, do not care about tests on line anymore, I buy lenses (3200 euros for 2 24 GM's) and test them by myself, luckily I can afford this, with my A7RIII trying to focus on the right side the focus was missed by huge margin, I can understand this from a reflex (luckily I had a good and reliable copy of a Canon EOS 6D which I enjoyed for 4 years, not a single problem focusing), cannot accept this from a mirrorless system, same problem on my A7III, so the problem were the 2 24 GM, that's it :)
"I know, read my reply to another comment below, it is pretty evident to me that f1.4 is slower than f2...."
Um, you reversed your meaning.
"but with a stabilized sensor is no advantage if the picture is not in focus so I prefer by far the Batis, do not care about tests on line anymore,"
Well, f/1.4 yields a different DoF on a 24mm full framed sensor than f/2.0.
"with my A7RIII trying to focus on the right side the focus was missed by huge margin,"
By all means critique the results from the Sony 24mm GM you had. But also explain whether or not others have reported this failure. Or is this failure a failure of the A7RIII to focus correctly on the right side, and have others reported this failure?
Yes, obviously my mistake, f1.4 gathers double light than f2 and yes dof is different, I had the same issue with two different 24 GMs used both on my A7RIII and A7III, not a single problem with Bastis lenses with the same cameras (and big big troubles with my gone A7RII / 100-400 GM, cannot get focus over 200 mm), maybe it is a sign... :D
Zeiss Batis 25/2 has far, far more longitudinal CA (cyan / magenta fringing) and onion ring bokeh than the 24 GM. It's unfortunate you received a bunch of bad copies though. I'm going to buy 3 randomly and check copy variation myself soon.
Yes it has an onion ring bokeh, LoCa is good though, maybe it is slightly less corrected than the Sony, maybe I have a good copy, but for sure I don't use it mainly for the bokeh, I like 24 mm focal length and so I had high expectations on the 24 GM but it was a letdown, for sure bad luck but no way I will buy it again and this is a pity, for the record I have sent my A7RIII to check just to be sure (it has a less precise AF than the A7III and it is less snappy, I have two A7III and they never let me down, never missed a beat, with FE lenses or with Sigma M11 adapter for EF lenses) but with the Batis (made from Tamron?) not a single problem, 24 GM is very sharp indeed, when it's in focus... Bad luck happens.
@RubberDials, I will not post on Flickr, I don't use it for test pictures, but I have some raws left (until I delete them, I do not keep useless raws on my hard disks) to share if someone wants to check, to me is completely unacceptable as quality, for other maybe it's sufficient/good, the fact that at the same f/stop the Zeiss is so much better is evident to my eyes.
I'm actually unfamiliar with how much LoCA can vary from copy to copy, but the Batis 25 has quite possibly some of the worst LoCA I've ever seen on any lens.
Almost every car is outlined in green here, and that's not even full resolution.
And look at the magenta fringing in the hair and the green fringing in the background here.
There's no comparison against the Sony 24 GM, which has extremely subdued LoCA.
The Canon EF 85 f1.2 is much worse with spherochromatism but it's magic :D I stand by my point, I was unlucky with 24 GM, never buy it again, I think that Sony will not cry for this :)
Hi Strolic, I've PM'd you my email. I would be grateful if you could send me some of the images you took with the two 24/1.4s that you had issues with.
Hey guys - have any of you found any problems with autofocus with the 24mm GM? I'm finding our copy sometimes just wobbles just enough to throw the subject out-of-focus.
Hi Rishi, yes, shooting with it on my A7RIII I had always to rely on DMF magnify function, first time I used it I was in a bar trying AF settings with some random pictures to check the "bokeh" (which is nice), Flexible Spot AF Small (too many problems with Wide and Zone area, even with Eye-AF, the light was not bright inside the bar), spot put on the face of a person 2 meters from me on the right side of the frame apsc limit, took the shot, then checking and the focus was not on the face but on the neck of another person sitting 40/50 cm in front of the focused one, first I thought was my mistake but the lens behaviour continued in a 50% hit or miss from various distances and subjects, then I went outside and taking a picture of a 20 meters distant gate, AF point in the center, the picture focus was some meters from me on the left and not on the gate so, again, DMF, never trusted normal AF anymore with that lens.
@Strolic - thanks for the reply. Good to know it's not an isolated incident (or bad to know, ha). I've reported it to Sony. Perhaps a firmware update could fix this.
It's weird though because sometimes, just using Eye AF, I have a great hit-rate. Other times, so-so. I never use Flexible Spot: S as I find it causes too much hunting -- any breathing during the focus rack causes what's underneath the point to change too much, confusing the AF system. I really think Flexible Spot: S should be almost like a hidden mode (like Pinpoint AF on the Nikon), b/c it causes a lot of people to think Sony AF is bad. Flexible Spot: M gives the AF system more of a chance to find something of contrast to lock on to.
Hi Rishi, yes even with EyeAF I had problems in both copies, hope for you that Sony can fix by firmware update but I think that they also should keep an eye to production line and lens centering, never encountered a lens with all that problems before :(
Well, it is only slighty smaller than the Canon EF 24 f1.4L II, yes it's lighter, it's compact compared to the other fixed GM lenses, Zeiss 25 f2 Batis is smaller and lighter but it is f2 and lacks the aperture control ring which is very nice to use.
Not compact? You must be joking. Zeiss milvus (no autofocus!) is 2400 euro and 1200 gram (and probably similar performance). Nikon 24mm 1.4g is 600+ gram and is not up to todays standard. 28mm F1.4E is 670 gram, and still not as good as this sony. This sony is almost the weight of 24mm F1.8G... So yes it's ultra leight. Going even lighter i think, you will pay with insane image quality loss.
I agree with OP. "Compact" is not the same as "compact compared to", and DPR used the words "compact" and "small" without any qualification. Sloppy and misleading.
"I agree with OP. "Compact" is not the same as "compact compared to", "
Isn't it? What does it mean then? You thought the lens was the size of a thimble? Don't talk nonsense. If someone writes that a 24mm lens is compact it means in relation to other lenses of the same spec. How on earth could it mean anything else?
Unfortunately the "common sense" of assumptions are very dangerous in journalism. State clearly precisely what you mean, otherwise it's just sloppy and can lead to misunderstanding. In the age of "fake news" that should be common sense.
@mxx - I think anyone with half a brain understood that they meant the lens was compact relative to other lenses of similar spec (ie, other 24/1.4 lenses). But I guess some people need every word and letter spelled out for them. Or it could be just that some people just like to partake in fabricated outrage, so they make an issue out of *every* little thing. Ugh, these people need therapy.
The Sony 24mm F1.4 is the latest lens to join the company's premium G Master lineup. We've been shooting with one for a couple of days - here's what you need to know.
Sony has taken the wraps off of its new 24mm F1.4 GM full-frame lens, which the company claims is the lightest in its class. Despite its fast aperture, the 24mm F1.4 is remarkably light, weighing just 445 grams (15.7 ounces). The lens will set you back $1400 when it ships next month.
In this episode of DPReview TV we take a look at Sony's brand new 24mm F1.4 GM lens, a desirable focal length for many photographers. How does it perform? Chris and Jordan give us their first impressions.
The Fujifilm X-T4 brings image stabilization, faster shooting and a bigger battery to the X-T series. It's not without its shortcomings but we found it to be an excellent stills and video shooter.
With its unusual form factor can the Tourbox aid the editing process? Will its price and variety of tactile controls appeal to photo and video editors who would like to streamline their workflow?
The Panasonic FZ1000 II is a worthy successor to the company's first large-sensor, long-zoom bridge camera, and a value-conscious rival to the popular Sony RX10-series. It's just as fast as its predecessor but produces nicer JPEGs, has significantly improved controls and interface, and more.
The DJI Mavic Air 2 is a Goldilocks drone. It's not the biggest or the smallest model out there, but it delivers just the right balance of size and features.
Exposure Software's latest Exposure X5 app is a surprisingly fast, feature-packed and affordable alternative to Adobe's Lightroom – with no subscription required.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.
Believe it or not, there are still people that like to print out their photos and create photo books to send gifts to family members. We looked at five popular photo printing services and have chosen the best.
Video features have become an important factor to many photographers when choosing a new camera. Read on to find out which cameras we think are best for the videophile.
The video position on the X1D II mode dial will finally get some action as 2.7K and FHD movies can now be recorded a new firmware release that also makes focus stacking and white balancing easier
By taking instant portraits and attaching them to their hospital gowns, hospital staff can add a personal touch to their caretaking, even while wearing extraordinary amounts of PPE.
If you are looking for a fun photography project to try, Mathieu Stern has a neat idea for you. Using the 'anthotype' process, Stern used only beetroot juice, paper, a photo positive and a bit of time in the sun to create a phytotype photograph.
Cameras' video capabilities just keep getting better. But what if you're not interested in video? Here's why you probably won't get stills-only versions of most cameras, and why they wouldn't be cheaper, if you did.
The Sony ZV-1 is the first overtly vlogging-focused camera on the market. We look at how it compares to the likes of the Canon Powershot G7 X III, both for vlogging and for photography.
What started as an internal means of checking the flange to sensor distance of its inventory turned into the painstaking task of measuring more than 2,500 camera bodies.
DxO has announced Nik Collection 3. The popular plugin suite includes a new Perspective Efex plugin for fixing distortion and adjusting perspective, bringing the total number of plugins in the suite to eight.
The term 'computational photography' gets used a lot these days, but what exactly is it? In this article, the first in a three-part series, guest contributor Vasily Zubarev dives deep to show us how photography will work in the future.
DPReview TV host Jordan Drake schleps around a lot of camera equipment. In this video he shows us what gear he carries in his ThinkTank Urban Disguise 50 V2 camera bag to make the magic happen.
We've taken the Xperia 1 Mark II to a few of our favorite spots around Seattle to get a better idea of what this flagship smartphone is capable of – see for yourself in our updated sample gallery.
As protests across the United States continue, there is an alarming rise in the number of incidents regarding police attacking photojournalists and members of the press.
Ever since we published our full X-T4 review last week, we just can't seem to put the camera down. It really is that nice to use. As for the image quality, we'll just let you be the judge of that!
Definitely a case of 'evolution rather than revolution', the new look is designed to help users recognize icons and logos more quickly in the different environments in which they appear
What does two years of progress look like, for Fujifilm's most video-centric models? Is the X-T4 worth the upgrade from the X-H1, or is now the time to bag yourself a bargain?
Adobe has released a new video series titled In a Lightroom Minute that breaks down tips and tricks for Lightroom CC and Lightroom Mobile in 60 seconds (give or take a few).
The Sony ZV-1 is a modified version of Sony's RX100 series aimed at vloggers and video enthusiasts. Does Sony have a winner? Chris and Jordan vlog their way through an episode to find out.
The live event is over, but the full replay is available until June 6 and they're still accepting donations — 100% of which go to Global Giving's Coronavirus Global Relief Fund and other regional charities.
Nikon's financial results don't fall far from the updated forecast shared earlier this month and highlight just how unsure the entire industry is about the future due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Thinking about buying your first film camera? Great news, there's plenty of options out there! Here are 12 things to keep in mind when picking out your perfect analog companion.
The teaser doesn't share much information but based on the visuals provided, it appears to be a mid-range zoom roughly the same size as its 28-75mm F2.8 lens.
In early March, it was reported the ITC ruled in Autel's favor over a long-standing patent battle. DJI, and its legal team, have issued a response declaring victory on their end.
Check out our first sample gallery from the Sony ZV-1, shot by our team at DPReview TV. Their full review of the ZV-1 is coming to a YouTube channel near you soon!
Comments